Yep, she's again implying that the ritual abuse hoax that she was instrumental in promoting was real, and the reaction against it meant that society was on the side of child abusers. She is rather coy about it though, she knows that she can't come straight out and reaffirm her belief in Satanists conspiracies without being laughed at so instead she merely refers to 'the Cleveland Child Abuse controversy'.The three decades that span the lifetimes of these perpetrators is the era of the rise and fall of child protection. There has been a revolution in collective consciousness about the abuse and adversity endured by thousands of children. Many survive, sad and struggling, often nobly, to live well, to cause no harm either to themselves or anyone else.
Three decades ago, society gave itself permission to take their side, for its institutions to support them, learn from them, become their champions, honour them. But they didn't. The goodwill towards suffering children that endures residually in communities has been squandered.
If someone as completely discredited as Beatrix Campbell can still get wheeled out as some kind of expert then what exactly does someone have to do to be classified as a loon?
3 comments:
"If someone as completely discredited as Beatrix Campbell can still get wheeled out as some kind of expert then what exactly does someone have to do to be classified as a loon? "
Well, David Shayler is showing the way... :)
Additionally, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has a bit of a curate's egg post on the Baby Peter topic in (of all places) the 'Daily Mail'...
She was on Jeremy Vine on Wed, arguing against some Social Work expert who wanted anonymity for everyone involved. The fact that both are employees of the child care industry skewed the debate a little - a bit like a debate between Trotsky and Lenin.
Strangely Jeremy didn't find room to mention Beas history.
If Jeremy Vine and Bea Campbell were in the same room then how unfortunate is it that no one happened to have a bomb with them?
Post a Comment